Dear Terry,
>>>>> Therneau, Terry M , Ph D via R-devel
>>>>> on Thu, 4 Apr 2019 22:48:49 -0400 writes:
> Someone sent me a bug report for survival2.44.1-1 that involves a model
with both cluster
> and offset.? It turns out to be a 3 part issue with [.terms and my own
untangle.specials
> routine.?? I've spent an evening sorting out the details.
> ? 1. The delete.response() function doesn't remove the response
from the dataClasses
> attribute, which leads to a later failure in [.terms for no-response
models.? Is there a
> reason for this, or can I make my patch include this oversight as well?
> ?2. [.terms messes up predvars and dataClasses if the model has an
offset term in it.?
> (In select cases 1 and 2 can cancel out and give the correct
dataClasses attribute.)
The above two seem interesting and relevant to R itself.
As we've recently just fixed a buglet in reformulate() --
probably unrelated to your problem -- I'd really be interested to see a
repr.ex. (reproducible example) for the above two statements.
... and if you want also a proposal on how to address the
problem in delete.response() and/or `[.terms`()
Martin
> ?3. The survival::untangle.specials routine assumed that you can use
the same
> subscripting for the terms of a model and the term() object itself,
which turns out to be
> almost always true, but only almost.
> ? The failure turns out to have probably been there since the Splus
days, which tells one
> just how often such a model is used. (One of two edge case bugs sent to
me in the first
> days after I pushed it to CRAN: a new release seems to attact them.)??
I'm willing to put
> together a patch, but given the rarity of these would folks prefer to
wait until after the
> April release??? I'm fine with that.? I need the answer to 1
though.
> Terry T.